Talk:Osman Nuri Paşa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Osman Nuri Paşa article.

Article policies

Contents

[edit] Comments

[edit] Ghazi

According to the biography in New International Encyclopedia, the meaning of the term Ghazi is "the victorious." His name and honorary title were Osman Nuri Pasha. Superslum 19:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Despite that fact that Pasha (Paşa) is also an honorary title, I have left it as part of his name, especially since he is often called simply Osman Pasha. Bejnar 21:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birth Place

Birth place is not Amasya, it was Tokat.Ugur Olgun 12:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Webpage of Tokat's governor is providing information about Osman Pasha. Here is the link: http://www.tokat.gov.tr/pages.asp?id=26 However webpage is in Turkish. Ugur Olgun 14:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birth and death dates

There are disagreements about his birth year 1832 (or 1833) vs. 1837. 1832 seems to be correct, but I would like to check more sources. His death day is listed as either 5 April (most sources) or 12 April (Encyc.Brit.). 5 April seems to be correct. His death year is listed as either 1897 or 1900. 1900 seems to be correct. Please help with sources on these if you have access to any authoritative ones. Thanks. Bejnar 19:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I merged the long text from Gazi Osman Pasha and the short text from Osman Nuri Pasha, leaving out the parts that were not relevant to Osman's history, and ones that I could not verify. I rewrote almost all of the article. I hope that the result is appropriately neutral, NPOV. I have provided links to three books that are available from Google Book Search. Chambers Biographical Dictionary and Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography aren't that useful. Bejnar 21:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links with POV

On 19 February 2007, Artaxiad deleted external link -

from this article on the grounds that it was "No good". There is no question that the article has a definite point of view, which it expressly states. The article also has images and information that is beyond the scope of the Wikipedia article. Much of the information in the article is verifiable, including quotations. I am not sure why Artaxiad considered it no good, other than its obvious POV. So the question is, should Wikipedia have an external link to a resource which contains solid information beyond the scope of the Wikipedia article (and not otherwise available on the Internet), but which is, in and of itself, not authoritative, and which has an acknowledged POV? --Bejnar 18:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The website is written in a POV manner everything on that site is bias, yet adding links like that is dumb meaning the site is not reliable does not fit the criteria for external links. On WP:LINKS number two of links to be avoided states, "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources." when the whole site is made to mislead a user, we don't need links like that. Artaxiad 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)